Delete file

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context that deletion also removes the file from search, and reinforces the confirmation requirement. The trailing sentence about runs spending credits and downstream actions reads like generic boilerplate that is only loosely tied to a file-delete tool, diluting the value.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose is front-loaded in a tight first sentence. The second sentence is bloated and partially off-topic (credits, downstream runs), which is not clearly earned for a file-deletion operation and makes the guidance muddier rather than sharper.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive tool with no output schema and 75% parameter coverage, the description covers the key effect (removal from source and search) and the confirmation gate, which is the minimum an agent needs. It leaves the file_id parameter and the return/error behavior unexplained, and the confusing run-centric sentence reduces rather than improves completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 75% and the schema already documents account, confirm, and source_id, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the confirm/account semantics ('exact account operation') but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema's own parameter descriptions already provide, and file_id remains undocumented in both.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (Remove) and resource (a file) plus the scope of effect: 'from the source and from search.' This lets an agent distinguish it from the sibling delete_brain_source, which removes a source rather than a file, without opening either schema. It does not explicitly name that sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description states a real usage precondition ('Explicit confirmation is required for this exact account operation') and warns against automatic resubmission, which implies the user must explicitly request the delete. However, it never states when to use this tool versus delete_brain_source or other brain-file tools, so the routing guidance is only implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.